I made a few points TAA, and I’m not sure what exactly you’re responding to.
/
I’ve read about Margaret Sanger and know what a nasty person she was.
/
“Recent history” isn’t very specific.
/
I simply don’t believe you regarding this pamphlet that encouraged dog and old lady fantasies (I’d Google it to verify, but then I don’t want that type of thing in my internet history).
/
I know all about “grooming” aka “ingratiation”. I don’t believe I am immune to it.
/
I’ve done and will continue to do critical thinking on this matter.

moogle: you are missing the point. Let me offer a few facts. One of the first things you learn when you work in a prison is how to protect yourself psychologically from prisoners. The process is called grooming whereby the inmate slowly endears self to you and you end up making small concessions for that person. Small concessions become large and then dangerous, compromising your personal integrity, and the safety of self and OTHERS. The grooming process can also be used by the pedophile with a child. It can also be used by different activist groups within a culture. More than 25 years ago Planned Parenthood published a pamphlet for parents to give to their preteen and teen regarding sex-ed. One portion addressed masturbation, which was encouraged as good and healthy. It was accompanied by drawing of a young boy in the bathtub imagining objects of sexual stimulation that included a very old lady and a dog.
Read Margaret Sanger. Study some recent history. Do some critical thinking. It is naive to think that attitudes toward sexual orientations and behaviors are not the result of well-funded cultural grooming, and to think that you are somehow immune to this grooming. The false sense of strength is the first position of weakness.

Hi Contrasign, read this please:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/08/18/salon-flubs-reporting-on-child-predators/

Then see what I said above about not giving a {redacted} what the medical community says. I promise us liberals aren’t all so beholden to academics that we are going to just let our kids get assaulted by grown ups and start calling it ‘love’ just because some guy at Harvard or John Hopkins says to. I can hear you saying now, “They changed their minds about homosexuality!”. I’ve already answered that one.

Pedophilic Conference attendee: “These mental health ‘professionals,’ and self-described pedophile and ‘gay’ activists were inexplicably able to cavalierly discuss, in an almost dismissive way, the idea of child rape,” Barber said. “They used flowery, euphemistic psychobabble to give quasi-scientific cover to a discussion about the worst kind of perversion.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/evil-attendees-at-prominent-pro-pedophilia-conference-horrified-by-sessions?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b2ebd041ea-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines08_23_2011&utm_medium=email

Catholics don’t “glamorize” pedophiles, they hide them and downgrade the problem:
—
—
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-the-scandals-increased-my-faith-in-the-church/

Wow, that was really long. Sorry.

Mark, neither of the “intellectual elites” you accuse of defending Polanski’s actions did so. They said that at his age and with all publicity surrounding his actions he can probably be safely kept out of a jail cell (I don’t agree with that, but that’s their argument. They aren’t defending his assault). Maybe you caught the part where Polanski’s victim said that she forgave him a long time ago and a trial would hurt more than help at this point in her life?

/

Here is the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: I don’t mind if gay people want to do gay things for each other. I do mind if adults want “love” my kids.

/

The two things are different. There are reasons they are different and it goes beyond an argument of “consent”. If mental health professionals become apologists for pedophilia they are going to have a heck of a time covering the tracks they’ve already made (and their tracks weren’t nearly so thick regarding homosexuality in the 70s). If prominent gay advocates start arguing for pedophilia I will call them dumb and wrong for it but it wouldn’t effect my opinion of non-pedophilic gay behavior. That would be guilt by association.

/

Basic Human Truth that can be validated easily without adacemic elites saying so: You will never find a child who wants to have a sexual relationship with an adult. Any child who says otherwise has been coercise by the adult in question. If “academic elites” tell me otherwise I will tell them to go {redacted} themselves.

/

If you don’t think I’m being locially consistent, then you should be able to accept that I mean what I say. If I’m not logical, then it shouldn’t matter if I’m logically wrong about this. I don’t mind gays, but I don’t like pedos and won’t accept them in society. Ever. Until I Die. Even if it means social ostracization for me. End of Story. I think most Americans who support gay marriage would say the same. (Thus, the threat of pedos ever being accepted as you say is very small indeed).

/

I haven’t seen the TV show in question, but I will say that in principle you can have a sympathetic character who is evil without trying to get the audience to accept their evil actions. In the instance of a pedophile, making such a character may help people to recognize pedophiles because many people still have an erroneuos idea that you can easily “spot” a pedo. The truth is that pedos are typically known and trusted by the victim’s family members because they act much more like normal people than we expect them to (which is why they are able to have intimate access to children in the first place). Again though, I have not seen this particular show and am NOT going to bat for it. I’m only saying that such a thing as a “sympathetic bad guy” can be used in drama without necessarily advocating the character’s bad actions. 

/

If American society ever accepts pedophiles the way it is starting to accept gays, I will gladly let you (Mark) slap me in the face yelling “I told you so” until you get tired or my face starts to resemble a cooked turkey (which ever comes first).

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement in particular, Mark: “The really amazing thing is how the world, having no principles beyond expedience, can simultaneously celebrate and condemn moral acts depending on how useful it is in attacking the Church.”

“The interesting thing about that is that the audience is going to be torn, because they’re going to not like him for what he’s done — but they’re gonna like him.”  That’s our twisted culture at work- trying to glorify a television pedophile.

Hopefully we still have enough sane people in the culture to keep reminding people of how relativism consumes itself.

Great blog!

RTD what are you even doing?

Seriously, I thought introducing the omnisexual, more than a little annoying Captain Jack to Doctor Who was bad. Then you gave him his own show. And now there’s a pedophile in it. I don’t care if he’s a hero, anti-hero, or plot device. It’s still incredibly icky. And this from the spin-off of a show that, back in the day, made Susan Foreman the Doctor’s granddaughter (not just a young woman he know) to avoid making him look like a creeper. What went wrong here?!

Thank GOD Davies isn’t head writer of Doctor Who anymore…

TAA, if one “really wants to examine this issue”, one might begin by identifying what exactly “this issue” is, as the published Catechism doesn’t identify it for us, just like the vague term “this issue” doesn’t adequately identify it.  Though the published Catechism touches upon, in brevity, some “violations of personal dignity associated with human sexuality”, it is not established apart from opinion that “this issue” is a violation of anything.  You might opine as to what “this issue” is or that “this issue” is a violation of personal dignity, but such opinions have no authority beyond your nose.  If you think that your opinion is “based” on the published Catechism, that too is your opinion.  Moreover, even if one’s opinion were “based” on the published Catechism, the published Catechism is itself also a “selective source, often taken out of context.”  I have read it.  Many people have read it.  And here we are.

Sarah,a personal opinion is just that, a mere opinion, whether it is yours or another bloggers; however, some opinions are based on more knowledge while others on selective sources, often taken out of context. And, as you said, the breadth of this issue cannot be properly addressed in this space. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a wealth of wisdom (natural and supernatural) on which its stand is based. If you really want to examine this topic you might want to read it; specifically read the section on chastity: PART THREE, LIFE IN CHRIST; SECTION TWO,THE TEN COMMANDMENTS;CHAPTER TWO,“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”; ARTICLE 6, THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT. Its free online. It addresses the many violations of personal dignity associated with human sexuality bearing in mind the good of the persona and society..

LAJ, you can bash your “experience is the standard for right and wrong behavior” strawman all you want.  It is yours.  And yet it remains that on many issues, experience can be quite helpful and guiding when we don’t have something definitively better.  Perhaps you believe that it is “not acceptable” for a parent to ever make contact with or show approval of her infant’s body parts, but if so, that’s your opinion, not Church teaching.  If you want to exalt your opinion as “the standard”, then you have already “begun sliding down the slippery slope to moral relativism”  and added to your “reasons we have abortion, same-sex marriage, high divorce, high teen pregnancy rates, high levels of sexually transmitted diseases ad nauseum.”  You admit you haven’t read the pamphlet.  If you don’t “condone” what you think it said (which is the opinion you speak of), you don’t condone your own thinking.

Clarification of my last post.  I said “I am perfectly willing to listen to someones opinion but I am not going to condone it out of charity when it conflicts with the teaching of the Church and the inherent dignity of the human person.”  I should have said “I am perfectly willing to listen to someones opinion but I am not going to condone their opinion out of misguided “charity” when it conflicts with the teaching of the Church and the inherent dignity of the human person.”

Ask the victim or the family of a victim of paedophilia what they think and feel first, and then you will have the answer you seek…the truth.

Sarah, you are absolutely correct I do NOT see any value in that type of behavior.  We certainly do not all have the same experience but experience is not the standard for right and wrong behavior and it is not charity to set that aside just because a lot of people agree that a certain bahavior is ok.  That is the beginning of sliding down the slippery slope to moral relativism.  What is charity is to explain with love and patience why such behavior is not acceptable.  Standing upon your principles is not uncharitable.  Letting such behavior gain ground just because a lot of people say “ok” is one of the reasons we have abortion, same-sex marriage, high divorce, high teen pregnancy rates, high levels of sexually transmitted diseases ad nauseum.  I am perfectly willing to listen to someones opinion but I am not going to condone it out of charity when it conflicts with the teaching of the Church and the inherent dignity of the human person.

LAJ, while it may be that YOU “can see no benefit in massaging a child’s private parts”, apparently others can and they share what they see.  Perhaps they find it “troubling” that you do not also see it.  But we do not all have the same experiences, education, even DNA.  And so we may see differently.  I think the author’s statement that “that there is no set policy” and that it is “debatable” is something to consider.  I appreciate her and everyone sharing their views.

TAA, no post is “complete”.  They are all limited by space and time.  There is no “confusing sin and temptation” in the writing of my posts.  Confusion, however, may exist in your reading.  Likewise, if your interpretation “lacks a salient point”, that too is yours.  Again, charity in interpretation will help.  If you would like help, just ssk.

Sarah: Your comments weave incomplete political (tolerance and sex ed programs/pamphlets), theological (confusing sin and temptation), legal (molestation is a legal term), and psychological (pedophilia is a mental DISorder, which is not good for the person even if they don not act on it) perspectives in a manner that fails to make a salient point.

Dear Sarah,
Thank you for the information. Like I said in my previous post, I had never heard of the EU Times until I ran into it here.  Not having seen the pamphlet I cannot make any kind of judgment on its content.  However, I can see no benefit in massaging a childs private parts.  I find that part, if accurate, troubling no matter how many people approved the content.  I really believe that it should be the parents who teach their child about sexual love but I cannot believe that should be done so early in a child’s development.

LAJ, years ago, there were indeed two pamphlets published by the BZgA, but the pamphlets and “what was reported” in the EU Times article are not the same thing.  “What was reported” was not “accurate” if by “accurate” one means an honest, complete, fair and balanced presentation without a salacious tabloid bias.  For example, the title of the EU Times article uses the word “pedophilia”, but the pamphlets did not advocate pedophilia.  Pedophilia is a mental disorder.  The pamphlets did not advocate that anyone should have a mental disorder, and did not advocate that people with the mental disorder of pedophilia should engage in touching their children’s genitals.  If I recall, the pamphlet “Love, Body and Playing Doctor” specifically advised against such a thing, and the pamphlets were promoted and distributed by organizations that oppose pedophilia.  Indeed, the author herself reportedly works in an evangelical counseling center, whatever that means.  There is a problem, however, that some people of the mindset to do such things could cherry pick sentences from the pamphlets out of context, and spin them with a sensational intent that the author herself protested.  To that end, a stink was made over the pamphlets and the matter was turned over to a German prosecutor for charges against the author, but upon investigation, the suspicion was promptly dropped because the pamphlets did not in reality advocate what the alarmists alleged.  As the auther herself remarked about it, “Many professionals have read it with appreciation, especially by those who know the subject of sexual abuse and prevention very well.”  The EU TImes article itself also stated that “it is recommended by many organizations officially fighting pedophilia” and that “before releasing the manual the organization consulted parents, educators and child psychologists. 93% of whom gave a positive evaluation”.  Yet, whether it’s the BZgA pamphlet or the Bible, there are always a minority of people who insist it promotes “abominable stuff”.  On “telling parents they should be doing” this or that, the author stated, “In the brochure I’m writing again and again that there is no set policy.”  She raises questions about the limits and reaches of sex education and what is appropriate and inappropriate, what children are being taught vs what should they be taught.  But some people will read it pervertedly, as the author herself said, “we know that pedophile offenders use anything as an argument for its justification. This is horrible and obviously completely inappropriate.”  She does not claim the pamphlets are perfect from every angle and admits “everything should be done to avoid misunderstandings at a revision of the brochure. I do not claim that I know of no error has been made”.  We are (rather, were) to read the pamphlets with charity, not with salacious bias.  But apparently because some people had difficulty with that, to my knowledge, the pamphlets in question are no longer being distributed by the BZgA, and haven’t been for years already.

I don’t think pedophilia will win mainstream acceptance anytime soon.  If anything, most secularists go *too* far in their hatred of pedophiles, to the point of completely denying them any human dignity.  (For instance, in my hometown a former sex offender was hounded by death threats, posters displaying his face, etc. . . He committed suicide.) 
</br>
</br>
I wonder if the hysteria over pedophilia is due to the fact that secularists *know* their relativistic philosophy is a slippery slope leading right to it.  Oh, sure, they argue that children haven’t attained the full use of reason and therefore can’t consent . . . but why use reason, rather than desire or pleasure, as the standard of consent for sex?  The fact that Planned Parenthood distributes its propaganda in middle schools shows that they’re just fine with children “exploring their sexualities” with each other if they want to, even without the full use of reason.  So why not let them choose to have sex with adults too?
</br>
</br>
Pedophilia will be accepted eventually.  Just not anytime soon.  It exposes the complete moral bankruptcy of the mainstream thinking, and they’re not ready to confront that yet.  So they’ll stamp their feet and scream about how pedophiles deserve the death penalty . . . and then someday in the future, they’ll wonder what all the fuss was about.

The question is not if EU Times is conspiratorial and anti-semetic however nasty and true it may be but if what was reported is accurate.  Did this pamphlet exist, was it written, published and used by the German government?  If so, that is truly the most sickening thing I’ve ever heard.

There are holes all around, but I felt that I needed to come on here (after I said that I would stop posting comments) and issue a warning about a source that Terese quoted.  The so-called EU Times is conspiratorial and anti-semitic.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004120045

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/12/16/racist-skinheads-wife-behind-european-news-website/

Pedophilia and child molestation are not the same thing.  Pedophilia is a mental disorder (with or without child molestation) involving a sexual attraction toward prepubscent children.  The Wolrd Health Organization even calls it a “sexual preference”.  It is not an act of child molestation, and the Church teaches that we are to distinguish between the attraction and the act.  While some (but not all) “pedophiles” have molested prepubscent children, pedophilia is not an act of child molestation.  A man could molest many young children and not be a pedophile, and likewise, a man can be a pedophile and not molest children.  A pedophile, i.e. a person who suffers from pedophilia, can be a saint.  He can be as holy as Mark Shea and the bishops or whoever.  Pedophiles can be as faithful to God’s call as anyone else.  Just as Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you,” he might well have also said that the pedophiles are entering heaven ahead of you.  Even pedophiles can be servants of God’s will.  They can be role models for us all.  Just because someone may be a “pedophile” does not justify bashing them as persons or thinking less of them than other people.  All mankind, including Mark Shea and all Catholics and non-Catholics, suffer from concupiscence, of which pedophilia is one of its many forms.  Some have it light and some have it hard.  The article mentions Roman Polanski, but he was reported to have molested a girl just shy of her 14th birthday, a girl who was probably not pre-pubescent, and thus the alleged act was not descriptive of a symptom of pedophilia.  Rather, the Polanski incident is descriptive of an act of unbridled heterosexuality.  To compare, an example of bridled heterosexuality involving an older man and a young girl is Joseph and Mary, with Mary being no older than the victim in the Polanski story.  Studies have found that a significant number of everyday heterosexual men are sexually attracted toward 14 year old girls.  Most do not break the law by molesing them.  And whether they molest or do not molest, it does not make them “pedophiles”.  Again, pedophilia and child molestation are not the same thing.  So, to recap, it is not a sin to be a “pedophile”.  The Church does not “condemn” pedophiles.  Pedophilia per se is not a sin.  It is a mental disorder.  Likewise, it is not a sin to make a TV series in which a pedophile character is “cool” and lovable, perhaps even portrayed as a hero.  All men are lovable, even Mark Shea and those who may suffer from pedophilia.  Even the word “pedophile” comes from the Greek word for love (of children).

The show Torchwood is a Dr. Who spin off and started out as an outlet for the writers of Dr. Who to allow their scripts to “go gay” if you will. Dr Who really didn’t play on those aspects. I believe the BBC ran out of money and they sold the show to a joint BBC Starz venture. I think this gave the writer/Producer Russel T Davies the freedom to produce this full-on gay presentation which is not the central point of the show. You could honestly edit out the sex (of any kind, and there is a lot of it) and have a decent SciFi show. It is to desensitize and normalize these kinds of behaviors; a sympathetic pedophile and gay leading character. I have watched teh four episodes so far and probably will not watch the rest the homosexual scenes were way to graphic as were the heterosexual scenes. I will stick with Dr. Who until that turns sour which i hope is never; been watching it since 1980.
The hollywood money allowed this and hopefully enough letters and complaints will end it this season.

“I find it strange that Mark Shea can giggle and joke while talking about pedophilia, the molestation of children.”

We all cope with evil in different ways, Florin.  Some by confronting the evil and trying to expose it.  Some by nonsensically bayonetting their own troops as they try to confront the evil and expose it.  Funny old world.

I suspect that you are right that this is a move to desensitize the public against this type of crime - knowingly or unknowingly.

However, it does have to be pointed out that part of the problem with the Church response to the pedophile scandal is exactly because many pedophiles can be very charming people.  They are usually very committed to what they do and so are often the star priest of the diocese or the fantastic teacher of the school.  This is what makes them so dangerous and why allegations have often been dismissed to quickly.

If the show was making this point while still emphasizing the monstrosity of the crime then it would at least have something to be said for it.  But I doubt it is so simple.

And frankly speaking, I don’t really know why we need shows with pedophiles in them at all.  I`m sick to death of hearing about them and its become a very unhealthy obsession for society.

By the way, check out the latest from the Irish Presidential elections where the leading candidate has had to resign after official letters have been released showing him trying to use his authority as a senator to reduce the sentence of his homosexual lover convicted in an Israeli court for raping a 15 year old boy.  He had already been lucky that his campaign hadnt been derailed by an old interview where he was quoted saying that pederastery wasnt so bad.

But the really interesting thing is how the Irish media has given him such a soft ride over all of this when you consider the church scandal there (which has rightly been criticised).  It needed a student blogger to bring the clemency plea issue to light.

I find it strange that Mark Shea can giggle and joke while talking about pedophilia, the molestation of children.

My, it feels so wonderful to be in such a progressive, enlightened world.

I agree with what you said, ‘‘Shows and characters like this help to soften the ground’’ especially when it comes to a pedophile being given a second chance. But have the courage and name the actor who said it.
John Barrowman, says stupid things all the time, but I think with his comments on the Oswald Danes character the ‘‘puppet master’’ Russell T. Davies, who wrote this offensive story line had something to do with it. Another thing Mr Davies said when he was talking about the Danes character sub plot, he said he thought it was ‘delicious’, now how is that any way acceptable.

One more actor, known for good guy roles,
jumping into evil for the sake of “art”.
Ugh.
I always liked Bill Pullman :(

Pullman must really need some cash.

Having seen 4 episodes of Torchwood so far, the pedophile character is seen as self centred and manipulative. The act he commited hasn’t been glorified at all. In fact in episode 3 he reveals that his contrition is fake (& the person who discovers that gets beaten up).

Reason #489 that I think television is a vile swamp. Oh sure, there are small safe spots amidst the festering ooze, but as soon as you venture in there, you’re surrounded by filth.

Well, isn’t that how real pedophiles & rapists get away with it? Because they are so charming to other adults that they are either never suspected, or when caught, can convince the other grown-up that they really didn’t mean it and will change? That “destroying the career” of this really terrific guy would almost be an injustice? They aren’t just rapists, they’re con-men too much of the time.

Not that I think this show is good—just that it is probably more true to life than not. Ugh.

Weird.  I think the Pope quote should go at the beginning.
Barrowman should be on the stage rather than film since nothing so well hides mediocrity as distance. Playing a person who never ages and indeed never changes isn’t acting, it’s being a plot device.  Kudos Mr. Barrowman, you’re Unobtanium.
Speaking of plot devices, the pedophile character is a provocative MacGuffin; sentenced to death, he survives his execution because of “Miracle Day.”  I can easily see him encountering Gwen Cooper’s baby toward the end of the series, and Gwen or her husband killing him, thus demonstrating that the miracle has well and truly ended.

“ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?! IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE!?”

Barbara: HERE is the thing..you missed the point….the show is NOT about “glorifying” a pedophile; it is about desensitization: nurturing the seed of acceptance by breaking the ground up around it and watering it with heartfelt sympathy for the characeter. Indeed there should be sympathy for men who are so broken but never acceptance of the act that flows out of their brokenness. Unfortunately the show is not likely to address the individual or social consequences. Thus, with hearts warmed to the person, the act becomes more “understandable” and eventually not wrong but a mere choice. The slippery slope!

I’ve only seen the first episode of this season, because I don’t have the network that carries Torchwood here, but the character in question was clearly a villain, or at most an antihero. I’m pretty sure Barrowman meant “liked” the same way people like Daleks or the Master on Torchwood’s parent show, Doctor Who. (I could be wrong, since I haven’t seen the rest of the current season, and maybe after the first episode he turns into a likeable hero rather than the unsympathetic creep he was in the first episode).

Without more of how Pullman’s character is presented in Torchwood, you may be jumping the gun here a little.

So totally creepy and disgusting!  Today, this article is linked on Life Site News bytes regarding sex and morality:
http://www.eutimes.net/2009/06/germany-and-eu-to-legalize-pedophilia-and-with-it-child-pornography-as-well/

Germany and the EU have printed pamphlets telling parents they should be doing abominable stuff to their children from infancy on to “awaken their sexuality.”  It makes me sick to my stomach.

I can see the handwriting on the wall- our current president is far more interested in social engineering of this sort (he’s working up to that) than he is in leading the country as a real president is supposed to.

Here’s the thing.  The actor is John Barrowman talking about the BBC show Torchwood, a Dr. Who spin-off.  Torchwood is definitely not for kids.  It has always been sexually explicit.  And even though I could do without all of that, Torchwood as a series usually offers lots of food for thought.

Without having seen the series, yet, I would not say for certain that the show glorifies a pedophile.  Bill Pullman’s pedophile character is in the process of state execution for his crimes when it is discovered that no one on the planet is able to die for an unknown reason.  This leads to the examination of a lot of moral and practical quandaries.

Well the show is torchwood miracle day. I don’t
see how anyone in theviewing audience would
take a liking to the Pullman character as that
he is obviously a front man for the manipulation
of the human race by a controlling drug company
To enslave the human race thru the use of a
certain pain medication. Outside of that tv isn’t
worth my time anymore.

You are absolutely right that mainstream audiences are suckers for exactly them.  Our nation did not start off aproving homosexuality till the media spoon fed them likeable and sympathetic characters.  We have gone way past the point of liking them and not liking what they do, to actually sticking up for and fighting for them to have more “rights” in doing what they do.  And this is exactly the danger in letting shows like this paint pedophiles in an appealing light.  The psychology behind it is obvious, yet people will not pick it up until it’s too late.

Just more mainstreaming of abhorrent behavior.  It seems it’s become OK if it entertains and is done by the right people.  Sickening.

Dear Hollywood,

I’ve written the screenplay for this new hit drama called Parish. We’ve got the main character [a parish priest] who’s a pedophile! The interesting thing about that is that the audience is going to be torn, because they’re going to not like him for what he’s done — but they’re gonna like him.

When can we start shooting the pilot?

The biggest number of pedophiliacs is not in the Church—and in fact the biggest problem is not pediophilia but gay priests who have ‘consensual’ relationships with young men/boys—- 

But the biggest number of pediophiliacs is outside the Church—
in families - where so much is ‘kept quiet’...

If one were able to do a ‘real poll of the world’ .—
(no pls dont)... the truth would be devastating to many…

The devil however is cunning—and will use whatever he can to destroy and attack the Church—  as is so obvious today..

The lady who asked ‘what can be done to stop this’—my suggestion
cancel all paid tv subscriptions—outside of those that are healthy and good .—nothing like hitting the pocket book of such debase men/women and their filthy programming—

There is a spiritual war going on between Good and Evil - and we all have to start understanding it and fighting as in the Militant Church….

Not comfortable but neither was The Cross Jesus carried.

Who is the actor referred to in the quoted post, what is the new show, and who can people contact to object to such programming (not that it will do much good)?  Advertisers should be the target.  If no advertisers, no show.

That’s just creepy. Glad I’m still watching Law and Order: SVU. Whatever its other flaws, it never makes pedophilia look good.

I’m sure their condemnation for the Church won’t be so much for condemning pedophilia, but for being “hypocrites” in condemning pedophilia.

As long as he doesn’t smoke.

How long till a tribal troll stupidly accuses Mark of covering up for clerical child sexual abuse?
It’s so true that the breathtaking hypocrisy of the cultural elite is perversely attractive to our concupiscence. Their infectious blindness looks like power over good and evil, a plane ‘beyond good and evil’. That’s what makes it such a seductive form of apostasy.